Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 117 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on account of employees contribution to PF after due date - contravention of the provisions of section 36(i)(va) - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has contributed towards PF and ESIC before due date of filing return under the Income Tax Act. It is well settled law that the contributions made to such funds before due date of filing return are admissible as expenditure. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) by placing reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT) has laid down the law in this regard. We do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue, accordingly, the same is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Reopening of assessment - amalgamation of company - benefit of set off and carry forward of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies in the hands of the assessee company denied - Held that:- In the present case, the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 have been initiated by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of change of opinion which is not permissible under law. At the time of scrutiny assessment all the information was available before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had an opportunity to examine and raise query. A perusal of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) shows that the Assessing Officer was well aware of the fact about the amalgamation of the companies with the assessee company. The Assessing Officer had raised certain queries on the depreciation claimed by the assessee on ‘license to collect toll’ in respect of amalgamating companies. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Officer had knowledge about the amalgamation of the companies as well as issues relating thereto. A perusal of the reasons for reopening further strengthen our view wherein the Assessing Officer has categorically stated, ‘On perusal of the material available on record…..’ the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that the amalgamating companies does not satisfy the definition of Industrial Undertaking u/s. 72A. From the documents on record, it is writ large that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the change of opinion which is impermissible under the Act. Therefore, reopening of assessment is bad in law and subsequent proceedings arising there from are not sustainable, accordingly, are liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|